> a) If you get all your music from the big stores then the > first part would be reasonable and true. But, I and many > others who love music will track down the albums we like > (either at concerts, through obscure magazines and by
> word of mouth) and (most of the time) won't mind paying
> the asking price.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this argument holds water. It's true that avoiding the big stores can save you money. However, obscure magazines (and often word of mouth) can't play the music for you. Commercial radio in America is a wasteland for anyone who happens to be proactive about finding new music, and the college stations--at least around here--aren't much better. I own several thousand CDs, and happily forked out the asking price for each of them. However, because most of what I buy isn't played on the radio, I'm forced to make my purchases blindly. Uncool. I have often used Napster as a screening room to sample various below-the-radio artists. If I like what I hear, I buy it. And I tell my friends.
> b) As a Brit I can actually appreciate irony =o) but if
> people are stupid enough to lay out $19 for essentially a > cd single then they deserve all they get. Why should they > be allowed anywhere near a massive catalogue of great
> music when they can't even pick one cd off a store
> rack?!?!
Well met--but I think the problem really lies with the product mentality that's been driving the major labels for the past 20+ years. If I hear a great song on the radio, I should be able to reasonably expect a full album's worth of songs that are at least semi-comparable in quality. This isn't the case. Oftentimes, the rest of the album doesn't even sound like the single. The major labels practice deception on a daily basis in order to separate the foolish consumer from his money. At the advent of MP3 technology, they buried their heads in the sand, and now they're paying for it.
> c) If this guy really wants us to have a cut of the
> action - then let me know where his website is with all
> his comedy material on so that I can use them at any
> family reunions, weddings and funerals. I won't pay him
> or acknowledge his creation - but I'll gladly rip him off > because I can and I'm too cheap to either write my own
> stuff or buy a book to help me in my comedy-speech
> writing.
There are certainly people out there who download songs for free because they're too cheap to pay for it. It isn't going to be possible for us to debate the motives of every Napster user. However, if you think this war is being fought on behalf of the artist, I have a bridge to sell you. The RIAA and the major labels are only interested in preserving the status quo--in continuing their decades upon decades of institutionalized robbery. If artists had a common voice, they would have used it to break the label system. They would have used it to bring an end to the unspeakably shitty accounting they're subjected to. They would have used it to bring an end to used-CD sales. But there is no common consensus among recording artists, only old men in suits who are nervous that their jig is up.
Grammy Rants
DeWester
location: Bay Area, CA
listening to: anything and everything
registered: 2000.07.03
posts: 343
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
D
DeWester
(view)
> a) If you get all your music from the big stores then the > first part would be reasonable and true. But, I and many > others who love music will track down the albums we like > (either at concerts, through obscure magazines and by
> word of mouth) and (most of the time) won't mind paying
> the asking price.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this argument holds water. It's true that avoiding the big stores can save you money. However, obscure magazines (and often word of mouth) can't play the music for you. Commercial radio in America is a wasteland for anyone who happens to be proactive about finding new music, and the college stations--at least around here--aren't much better. I own several thousand CDs, and happily forked out the asking price for each of them. However, because most of what I buy isn't played on the radio, I'm forced to make my purchases blindly. Uncool. I have often used Napster as a screening room to sample various below-the-radio artists. If I like what I hear, I buy it. And I tell my friends.
> b) As a Brit I can actually appreciate irony =o) but if
> people are stupid enough to lay out $19 for essentially a > cd single then they deserve all they get. Why should they > be allowed anywhere near a massive catalogue of great
> music when they can't even pick one cd off a store
> rack?!?!
Well met--but I think the problem really lies with the product mentality that's been driving the major labels for the past 20+ years. If I hear a great song on the radio, I should be able to reasonably expect a full album's worth of songs that are at least semi-comparable in quality. This isn't the case. Oftentimes, the rest of the album doesn't even sound like the single. The major labels practice deception on a daily basis in order to separate the foolish consumer from his money. At the advent of MP3 technology, they buried their heads in the sand, and now they're paying for it.
> c) If this guy really wants us to have a cut of the
> action - then let me know where his website is with all
> his comedy material on so that I can use them at any
> family reunions, weddings and funerals. I won't pay him
> or acknowledge his creation - but I'll gladly rip him off > because I can and I'm too cheap to either write my own
> stuff or buy a book to help me in my comedy-speech
> writing.
There are certainly people out there who download songs for free because they're too cheap to pay for it. It isn't going to be possible for us to debate the motives of every Napster user. However, if you think this war is being fought on behalf of the artist, I have a bridge to sell you. The RIAA and the major labels are only interested in preserving the status quo--in continuing their decades upon decades of institutionalized robbery. If artists had a common voice, they would have used it to break the label system. They would have used it to bring an end to the unspeakably shitty accounting they're subjected to. They would have used it to bring an end to used-CD sales. But there is no common consensus among recording artists, only old men in suits who are nervous that their jig is up.
> word of mouth) and (most of the time) won't mind paying
> the asking price.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this argument holds water. It's true that avoiding the big stores can save you money. However, obscure magazines (and often word of mouth) can't play the music for you. Commercial radio in America is a wasteland for anyone who happens to be proactive about finding new music, and the college stations--at least around here--aren't much better. I own several thousand CDs, and happily forked out the asking price for each of them. However, because most of what I buy isn't played on the radio, I'm forced to make my purchases blindly. Uncool. I have often used Napster as a screening room to sample various below-the-radio artists. If I like what I hear, I buy it. And I tell my friends.
> b) As a Brit I can actually appreciate irony =o) but if
> people are stupid enough to lay out $19 for essentially a > cd single then they deserve all they get. Why should they > be allowed anywhere near a massive catalogue of great
> music when they can't even pick one cd off a store
> rack?!?!
Well met--but I think the problem really lies with the product mentality that's been driving the major labels for the past 20+ years. If I hear a great song on the radio, I should be able to reasonably expect a full album's worth of songs that are at least semi-comparable in quality. This isn't the case. Oftentimes, the rest of the album doesn't even sound like the single. The major labels practice deception on a daily basis in order to separate the foolish consumer from his money. At the advent of MP3 technology, they buried their heads in the sand, and now they're paying for it.
> c) If this guy really wants us to have a cut of the
> action - then let me know where his website is with all
> his comedy material on so that I can use them at any
> family reunions, weddings and funerals. I won't pay him
> or acknowledge his creation - but I'll gladly rip him off > because I can and I'm too cheap to either write my own
> stuff or buy a book to help me in my comedy-speech
> writing.
There are certainly people out there who download songs for free because they're too cheap to pay for it. It isn't going to be possible for us to debate the motives of every Napster user. However, if you think this war is being fought on behalf of the artist, I have a bridge to sell you. The RIAA and the major labels are only interested in preserving the status quo--in continuing their decades upon decades of institutionalized robbery. If artists had a common voice, they would have used it to break the label system. They would have used it to bring an end to the unspeakably shitty accounting they're subjected to. They would have used it to bring an end to used-CD sales. But there is no common consensus among recording artists, only old men in suits who are nervous that their jig is up.
